Archaeologist: The allegation that members of the excavation team reco

Question

Archaeologist: The allegation that members of the excavation team recovered artifacts outside the authorized site is unfounded. Archaeologists, unlike most treasure hunters, excavate artifacts to publish the results of their findings. But material recovered illegally could not be used in a publication without the illegal act being discovered. So it would be of no use to an archaeologist.

The archaeologist’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it

The archaeologist’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it

(A) ignores the possibility that not all members of the excavation team were archaeologists

(B) fails to consider that not all treasure hunters act illegally

(C) presumes without providing adequate justification that most treasure hunters excavate artifacts to sell them

(D) assumes without providing warrant that any use of illegally recovered material is itself illegal

(E) illicitly infers, from the fact that most members of the team are not treasure hunters, that they are all archaeologists

Nielgmat · Answer

As per the Archeologist, who did not recover artifacts illegally? - "Members of excavation team"
But while concluding, he says Archeologists will not recover artifacts illegally. - That leaves room for the non - archeologists in the team to recover artifacts illegally. So, the non - archeologists can recover and hand over illegally recovered artifacts to the Archeologists, who can then use the artifacts in publication. That is one assumption the Archeologist makes.

Also, discovery of illegal recovery of artifacts is assumed to be a surety - Thats the second assumption. The 'crime' or 'illegal activity' may never be discovered. (This might get in to the realm of attacking the premise..but lets hold on to it for now)

Now lets see if any of the Options attack any one or both of these assumptions.

The archaeologist’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism (WEAKEN THE ARGUEMENT) because it

(A) ignores the possibility that not all members of the excavation team were archaeologists -  Attacks 1st assumption

(B) fails to consider that not all treasure hunters act illegally -  Conclusion is about Archeologists, hence option is irrelevant.

(C) presumes without providing adequate justification that most treasure hunters excavate artifacts to sell them -  Same as B, no mention of Archeologists

(D) assumes without providing warrant that any use of illegally recovered material is itself illegal -  Again, no mention of Archeologists, conclusion is not just about what is legal and what is not, its about who is doing it - Archeologists?
 
(E) illicitly infers, from the fact that most members of the team are not treasure hunters, that they are all archaeologists -  It doesn,t matter how many Archeologists and non archeologists are there in the team as long as there is one of each.

Hence, CORRECT OPTION IS 'A'.

namanqqkm · Answer

Hi, I am still confused with option an and e, I ended up choosing e. can someone help me

miag · Answer

Hi,

Let me try to help you out with this one:
The argument concludes that no member of the excavation team recovered artifacts illegally, but the reasoning only talks about what archaeologists would or wouldn’t do. It ignores the possibility that some team members may not be archaeologists, which is exactly what (A) points out.

(E) is wrong because it

But the argument never states or implies: that most team members are not treasure hunters or any numerical claim at all (most/many/some)

Hope this helps!

guddo · Answer

Archaeologist: The allegation that members of the excavation team recovered artifacts outside the authorized site is unfounded. Archaeologists, unlike most treasure hunters, excavate artifacts to publish the results of their findings. But material recovered illegally could not be used in a publication without the illegal act being discovered. So it would be of no use to an archaeologist.

The archaeologist’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it

The archaeologist’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it

The archaeologist argues: archaeologists want to publish; illegal artifacts cannot be published without exposing the illegality; therefore illegal artifacts would be useless to an archaeologist; so the allegation that team members recovered artifacts illegally is unfounded.

(A) ignores the possibility that not all members of the excavation team were archaeologists

A. ignores the possibility that not all members of the excavation team were archaeologists

This is the  main weakness . The allegation is about “members of the team,” but the defense only shows why an archaeologist would have little incentive to recover illegal artifacts. If some team members were not archaeologists, the argument does not rule out that they recovered artifacts illegally for other reasons.

B. fails to consider that not all treasure hunters act illegally

Whether some treasure hunters act legally does not matter. The argument is not “treasure hunters are illegal,” it is “archaeologists want to publish, so illegal artifacts are useless to them.” So this does not hit the reasoning.

C. presumes without providing adequate justification that most treasure hunters excavate artifacts to sell them

Even if that claim about treasure hunters is shaky, the conclusion is supposed to rest on archaeologists’ incentives and publication risk. Attacking treasure hunters’ motives is not the core vulnerability.

D. assumes without providing warrant that any use of illegally recovered material is itself illegal

The archaeologist’s point is about publication exposing the illegal recovery, not about the legality of “using” the material. So this critique misstates what the argument relies on.

E. illicitly infers, from the fact that most members of the team are not treasure hunters, that they are all archaeologists

The argument never makes that inference. It does not say “not treasure hunters, therefore archaeologists,” so this is not the flaw.

Answer: (A)

namanqqkm · Answer

yes now makes sense, I am facing problems with these kinda questions where 2 options sounds and logically looks correct. Can you suggest me good material to practice and learn from?

egmat · Answer

For Flaw/Vulnerable to Criticism questions, use this 3-step test:

Step 1: Identify the CONCLUSION (what are they trying to prove?)
Step 2: Identify the EVIDENCE (what reason do they give?)
Step 3: Ask: "What UNSTATED ASSUMPTION connects evidence to conclusion?"

The correct answer will expose this gap.

Correct approach: "Does this choice attack something the argument depends on but never proved?"

Practice Tip:
Focus on identifying scope shifts - when the evidence talks about Group X but the conclusion is about Group Y. This is a very common GMAT pattern!

BTW usually there's a gap in one of the steps in the process that leads to wrong answers. The first step should be to identify YOUR exact gap. Try this diagnostic - https://coach-connect-recordings.lovabl ... diagnostic Can help you figure out exactly what you need to work on based on the results

namanqqkm

yes now makes sense, I am facing problems with these kinda questions where 2 options sounds and logically looks correct. Can you suggest me good material to practice and learn from?

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   MartyMurray

I am unable to understand why (E) is wrong. My reasoning is that the argument must have assumed that there is no treasure hunter, if there was a single treasure hunter because that treasure hunter could have  excavated artifacts to publish the results of their findings and  then the argument couldn't claim that the allegation is unfounded, and this is where (E) is highlighting the weakness.

Am I wrong because the argument states  "    most  treasure hunters, excavate artifacts to publish the results of their findings"  so there is a possibility that the single treasure hunter mentioned above in my reasoning might not fall into the category?

Please let me know where I am going wrong.

KarishmaB · Answer

Archaeologist's premises:
Archaeologists excavate artifacts to publish the results of their findings. (Most treasure hunters do not do so)
But material recovered illegally cannot be used in a publication without the illegal act being discovered.

Intermediate Conclusion: illegal excavation is of no use to an archaeologist.

A's Conclusion: The allegation that members of the excavation team recovered artifacts outside the authorized site is unfounded.

What is the assumption? The link between "members of the excavation team" and "Archaeologists" is missing. Where is it given that members of the excavation team are all Archaeologists? What if some of them were treasure hunters? Or someone else who doesn't wish to publish but excavate for financial gains?

(A) ignores the possibility that not all members of the excavation team were archaeologists

Correct. It ignores the possibility that some members of the excavation team could be non-archaeologists.

(E) illicitly infers, from the fact that most members of the team are not treasure hunters, that they are all archaeologists

Are we even given the "fact that most members of the team are not treasure hunters"? No. The argument only mentions "members of the excavation team". They may be archaeologists or treasure hunters or laypeople for all we know. The argument tells us nothing.
The archaeologist does illicitly imply that members were all archaeologists by the way he gives the argument but not from any given "fact" since he gives no such fact.

Hence (E) is not correct.

Answer (A)

Discussion on Assumption Questions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU

agrasan · Answer

Thanks  KarishmaB , just for my learning, if we remove (A) and revised (E) was    "assumes that most members of the team are not treasure hunters, that they are all archaeologists"   , then my reasoning would have been correct?

KarishmaB · Answer

Use of "most" is incorrect here. If (E) were saying "assumes that all members of the team are archaeologists" then this would be correct but then, it is no different from (A).

Archaeologist: The allegation that members of the excavation team reco

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Archaeologist: The allegation that members of the excavation team reco

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards